kpapajanis
asked on
Slowdown with over 40 windows open
Hello,
We have a power user who multitasks his system to its knees. It is a Dell Precision 370 with 3.0Ghz HT P4 and 3GB of RAM running Windows XP SP2. This user regularly operates with anywhere from 40-80 windows open at once which include dozens of network locations, half the MS-Office suite including Outlook accessing over 10Gb of email, Adobe applications, etc. The system gets very slow and unresponsive and applications begin to behave oddly and occasionally crash, despite being painstakingly reimaged from scratch. The memory usage of the machine with all these windows opens usually does not exceed 1 gig or so according to task manager. The user is convinced that they need more memory even though I have explained that he has more memory than our core servers supporting the entire company. I suspect the slowdowns and misbehaviour are due to poor scheduling and management of resources by windows itself, and the sheer number of context switches the system must deal with. Are there any registry adjustments that can be made to improve this? Would multiple processors/cores alleviate the issue? The user is part of upper level management and "No" is not an acceptable answer. I am hesitant to build a dual or quad core workstation only to find it hits the same wall due to the windows OS.
We have a power user who multitasks his system to its knees. It is a Dell Precision 370 with 3.0Ghz HT P4 and 3GB of RAM running Windows XP SP2. This user regularly operates with anywhere from 40-80 windows open at once which include dozens of network locations, half the MS-Office suite including Outlook accessing over 10Gb of email, Adobe applications, etc. The system gets very slow and unresponsive and applications begin to behave oddly and occasionally crash, despite being painstakingly reimaged from scratch. The memory usage of the machine with all these windows opens usually does not exceed 1 gig or so according to task manager. The user is convinced that they need more memory even though I have explained that he has more memory than our core servers supporting the entire company. I suspect the slowdowns and misbehaviour are due to poor scheduling and management of resources by windows itself, and the sheer number of context switches the system must deal with. Are there any registry adjustments that can be made to improve this? Would multiple processors/cores alleviate the issue? The user is part of upper level management and "No" is not an acceptable answer. I am hesitant to build a dual or quad core workstation only to find it hits the same wall due to the windows OS.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Callandor
I would recommend Black Viper's WinXP tweaks, but his site seems to have gone away. Someone else mad a copy of most of them here: http://www.dead-eye.net/WinXP%20Services.htm
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
>"No" is not an acceptable answer.
Ummm. If 'no' is the answer, then it must be acceptable. Sometimes someone must grow a pair and tell a user that you cannot fix their computer because the computer is not the problem. Tell them NO ONE needs 40-80 Windows open. NO ONE reads 10 GB of email. NO ONE.
Assuming no one has the backbone to tell the user this (and I am certain I will not get points for this unpopular position but I dont care), set them up with a second computer. One for the assinine amount of email (10 GB) and a second for the assinine amount of Windows open.
10 GB of email...seriously...
Appropriate RFC
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1925.html
Ummm. If 'no' is the answer, then it must be acceptable. Sometimes someone must grow a pair and tell a user that you cannot fix their computer because the computer is not the problem. Tell them NO ONE needs 40-80 Windows open. NO ONE reads 10 GB of email. NO ONE.
Assuming no one has the backbone to tell the user this (and I am certain I will not get points for this unpopular position but I dont care), set them up with a second computer. One for the assinine amount of email (10 GB) and a second for the assinine amount of Windows open.
10 GB of email...seriously...
Appropriate RFC
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1925.html
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
>Another thing: if the mailbox is 10Gb, and it is an Exchange mailbox, it should not affect performance of the client, only of the mailserver. If it is a PST, well....
Incorrect. Outlook will download all 10 GB during start up unless in cached mode (O2003) in which case it will STILL compare headers to see if cache version is up to date.
Buzz -- thanks for playing.
Incorrect. Outlook will download all 10 GB during start up unless in cached mode (O2003) in which case it will STILL compare headers to see if cache version is up to date.
Buzz -- thanks for playing.
"Outlook will download all 10 GB during start up "
No it doesn't. That's the whole purpose of MAPI, which has been around since the time we were running Outlook/Exchange on a 486 with 8Mb.
No it doesn't. That's the whole purpose of MAPI, which has been around since the time we were running Outlook/Exchange on a 486 with 8Mb.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Hello Redwulf_53...
What would you say if you were in charge of Air Conditioning and some user ask you to cool down his office up to minus 30 Degrees???....
"WHY shouldn't a user be able to work on a cool office at minus 30 Degrees? Does it say so in the manual?"
I'm sure you will not start getting more powerful cooling system to get the requested temp. (solution in the Technical level). You will convince to user to cool down his office just to the normal temperature or send him to work in an environmental station in the north pole (Solution in the social level)
If we had to accept every ridiculous request from any user we will have no time to solve the real problems. If your boss ask for a million terabits per second internet connection because 5 megabits/second is not enough for him... he has to accept a NO as answer.
What would you say if you were in charge of Air Conditioning and some user ask you to cool down his office up to minus 30 Degrees???....
"WHY shouldn't a user be able to work on a cool office at minus 30 Degrees? Does it say so in the manual?"
I'm sure you will not start getting more powerful cooling system to get the requested temp. (solution in the Technical level). You will convince to user to cool down his office just to the normal temperature or send him to work in an environmental station in the north pole (Solution in the social level)
If we had to accept every ridiculous request from any user we will have no time to solve the real problems. If your boss ask for a million terabits per second internet connection because 5 megabits/second is not enough for him... he has to accept a NO as answer.
"Tell them NO ONE needs 40-80 Windows open. NO ONE reads 10 GB of email. NO ONE." end quote - is not a judgement up to the System Administrator
It is if it means that you have to buy new hard disk for your server for lack pf space because of 10 gb mailbox. And it is if you have to buy 3 gb of RAM for that user just because he doesn't want to close a couple of windows. And even if it's not written somewhere doesn't mean you can do it. Is it written somewhere that the cd tray must not be used as a coffee cup holder??
It is if it means that you have to buy new hard disk for your server for lack pf space because of 10 gb mailbox. And it is if you have to buy 3 gb of RAM for that user just because he doesn't want to close a couple of windows. And even if it's not written somewhere doesn't mean you can do it. Is it written somewhere that the cd tray must not be used as a coffee cup holder??
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
>This is a Dilbert moment. (I don't expect any points either)
Exactly. Shesh, kowtow to every stupid user request. That's probably the right thing to do.
Exactly. Shesh, kowtow to every stupid user request. That's probably the right thing to do.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Who said Dilbert?? Check this out to see a good example of this...
http://www.comics.com/comics/dilbert/english/archive/edilbert-20050910.html
http://www.comics.com/comics/dilbert/english/archive/edilbert-20050910.html
great Dilbert. Cool.
I agree with DClive. Either pay M$ to troubleshoot it or dive into Perfmon
I agree with DClive. Either pay M$ to troubleshoot it or dive into Perfmon
This notion that $245 dollars and MS gives an answer is funny. Increasing computing power is not a guess. It is a smart step. If the problom only surfaces after opening more and more Windows, then it is not likely just a bad driver. What is causing te bottleneck? Try fitting 80 people in your mini-van. Maybe it is just a seating problem? Give me a break. Common sense says to increase the power of the computer or lighten the load. This fix the OS stuff is silly. The OS may not be made for this so at least give the guy a comuter that is and let the flaws in OS show themselves. That is not guessing.
This is a great bunch of answers and it illustrates some of the reasons people don't like IT guys. You have to work to solve problems and not just tell others that they can't do that or why they are not doing it right. The purpose of the computers is to help the PEOPLE. Listen to the people and try to figure out how to make the computers work for them.
I have called MS and they have some good people there but Jesus is not on staff or he is busy with IE 7. These people created part of the inadequacy and a phone call is not going to re-engineer Windows. That said, a more powereful computer will help. BTW, Dilbert is pretty much an idiot too.
This is a great bunch of answers and it illustrates some of the reasons people don't like IT guys. You have to work to solve problems and not just tell others that they can't do that or why they are not doing it right. The purpose of the computers is to help the PEOPLE. Listen to the people and try to figure out how to make the computers work for them.
I have called MS and they have some good people there but Jesus is not on staff or he is busy with IE 7. These people created part of the inadequacy and a phone call is not going to re-engineer Windows. That said, a more powereful computer will help. BTW, Dilbert is pretty much an idiot too.
I have quite a bit of experience with Microsoft. For $245, they *will* fix your problem. They will use real tools to figure out what the issue is - without guessing. If they can't, ask for your money back, and you'll get it - they guarantee complete satisfaction or your money back.
And no, unless CPU in TaskMon is pegged at 100%, it may not (i.e. almost certainly isn't) be a CPU problem. You're guessing.
Don't guess. Use PerfMon and be certain.
And no, unless CPU in TaskMon is pegged at 100%, it may not (i.e. almost certainly isn't) be a CPU problem. You're guessing.
Don't guess. Use PerfMon and be certain.
>This is a great bunch of answers and it illustrates some of the reasons people don't like IT guys.
And illustrates why IT guys dislike users.
User: "Make this pig fly."
IT: "Uh, pigs don't fly"
User: "Our IT guys suck. We need the pig to fly. We told the customer the pig would fly."
IT: "Uh, pigs don't fly."
User: "I'm the boss. Pigs must fly."
We cannot alter reality. Pigs do not fly. PCs are not meant to have 80 windows open. Mailboxes are not meant to be 10 GB.
>That said, a more powereful computer will help.
Have your IT install spell checker.
>Dilbert is pretty much an idiot too.
No, Dilbert is a cartoon. Idiots are people who post opinions without facts to support them.
And illustrates why IT guys dislike users.
User: "Make this pig fly."
IT: "Uh, pigs don't fly"
User: "Our IT guys suck. We need the pig to fly. We told the customer the pig would fly."
IT: "Uh, pigs don't fly."
User: "I'm the boss. Pigs must fly."
We cannot alter reality. Pigs do not fly. PCs are not meant to have 80 windows open. Mailboxes are not meant to be 10 GB.
>That said, a more powereful computer will help.
Have your IT install spell checker.
>Dilbert is pretty much an idiot too.
No, Dilbert is a cartoon. Idiots are people who post opinions without facts to support them.
Guess that got a little close to home for you...
All aside, this conversation has gone south and isn't helper the asker.
However, Dilbert unfortunately is pretty close to reality in many businesses.
There have been many good suggestions on trying to find out the bottleneck, but realistically, the user is using too many Windows, and probably very frivously at that. No human can possibly use 80 windows quickly enough to justify having them all open. The computer probably spends it's life thrashing--switching things in and out of memory--even with a lot of RAM.
Adobe Acrobat Reader 7.0 for one, uses around 64MB on my machine just in loading up--no document loaded. At least that's what task man shows. Software is getting bloated and the more memory the more programs suck up. I can't imagine if these are 80 good sized applications running. Maybe the user needs to buy 20gb of RAM to find out that it still won't work.
However, Dilbert unfortunately is pretty close to reality in many businesses.
There have been many good suggestions on trying to find out the bottleneck, but realistically, the user is using too many Windows, and probably very frivously at that. No human can possibly use 80 windows quickly enough to justify having them all open. The computer probably spends it's life thrashing--switching things in and out of memory--even with a lot of RAM.
Adobe Acrobat Reader 7.0 for one, uses around 64MB on my machine just in loading up--no document loaded. At least that's what task man shows. Software is getting bloated and the more memory the more programs suck up. I can't imagine if these are 80 good sized applications running. Maybe the user needs to buy 20gb of RAM to find out that it still won't work.